Dear Editor,
By now, we are all aware of Mr Charrandas Persaud’s reasons for his “vote of conscience” on the no-confidence motion. It is puzzling therefore why he did not exercise the options of resigning from his party beforehand or even abstaining from voting. He instead chose to pull off the most repugnant and undemocratic political act in decades in Guyana.
Ours is a representative democracy. Despite its several defects, the people have certain expectations of their MPs. One expectation surrounds the conscience vote. In any circumstance, we expect an MP to be open upfront should he or she plan to vote conscience. This openness becomes an absolute necessity for a vote on a no-confidence motion.
For the no-confidence motion is like no bill or other parliamentary motion. It carries the highest possible political stakes. A government survives or falls by it. An MP, therefore, cannot view it in the same light as a parliamentary bill or even as the national budget. A vote on a no-confidence motion is the highest possible act of representation. In other words, it most demands the need for representativeness, for the input of the represented. It implicates, more than any other vote, the interest and destiny of every single Guyanese. It is the one vote where the personal conscience of the MP is irrelevant or least relevant. It is only the conscience of those who he represents that matters.
Charrandas Persaud woke up one morning and decided that my vote and conscience and those of hundreds of thousands of other Guyanese did not matter. He chose not to discuss his concerns with us beforehand. He chose not to resign beforehand or abstain. Instead, he chose to disdainfully treat us like nothing.
Yours faithfully,
Sherwood Lowe
